Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CRM(M)/594/2026 of UT OF J AND K TH SHAMMI KUMAR DY SP OPS RAJOURI Vs AJAZ AHMED AND ORS on 29 June 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 594/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 29.06.2026 UT of J&K …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA. Vs Ajaz Ahmed and Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 594/2026
Date of Pronouncement: 29.06.2026
UT of J&K
…..Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA.
Vs
Ajaz Ahmed and Ors.
.….Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(29.06.2026)
01. The petitioner-UT of J&K, through the medium of this petition moved under section 483(3) read with section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeks quashment of order dated 08.07.2025 whereby the respondents, as accused, have been granted bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 24/2025 of Police Station, Kandi under sections 8/21/22/25/29 of NDPS Act by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri.
02. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of challenge to the impugned order made in the petition, has mainly argued that the police had Serial No. 04
2 CRM(M) No. 594/2026
cracked a drug syndicate comprising of the respondents, however, the trial court had granted bail to the respondents/accused even before examining any of the prosecution witnesses.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has not pointed out any illegality in the passing of the order impugned, by the trial court, particularly with regard to non-application of the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the case or violation of any of the conditions imposed by the trial court, while granting bail to the respondents, vide impugned order.
04. The impugned order passed by the trial court has been examined by this court meticulously and found that there was no illegality in the order passed by the court below. Except any illegality, perversity or societal impact or the contravention of any of the conditions imposed by the trial court, the bail cannot be sought to be cancelled on the factual grounds from this court. The prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail in case of contravention of any of the conditions imposed by the trial court, in the impugned order while granting bail to the respondents/accused, during trial of the case.
3 CRM(M) No. 594/2026
05. In the aforesaid backdrop, no ground is made out to intervene at this stage with regard to the impugned order passed by the trial court whereby the respondents have been admitted to bail, as a result, the petition is found to be without any merit and substance and is dismissed in limine.
(M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE JAMMU
29.06.2026
NARESH
Naresh Kumar 2026.06.29 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document